From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/17] fs: icache lock i_count Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 01:55:36 -0400 Message-ID: <20101001055536.GD32349@infradead.org> References: <1285762729-17928-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1285762729-17928-6-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20100929215229.160c7bce.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Dave Chinner , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100929215229.160c7bce.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 09:52:29PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:18:37 +1000 Dave Chinner wrote: > > > - if (atomic_read(&inode->i_count) != 1) > > + if (inode->i_count != 1) > > This really should have been renamed to catch unconverted code. > > Such code usually wouldn't compile anyway, but it will if it takes the > address of i_count only (for example). If people do whacky things they'll lose - there is a reason why C has a fairly strict type system after all. We've changed types of variables all the time and we didn't run into problems. > And maybe we should access this guy via accessor functions, dunno. Seems like complete overkill.